Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The reason Ansible is used is because we have no current equivalent > facilities to do delayed script execution or diversion of > configuration files. Both are functions required for Debian-style > configuration packages. Feel free to file an issue with rpm upstream[1] > to figure out a good way to support configuration packages if you want it. OK, thanks, though it sounds as if there's enough in recent rpm to kludge it, and it's not likely to get much interest. > On the flip side, because these facilities haven't existed for so long > and the RPM ecosystem largely rejected interactive script hooks in > RPMs, most packages ship with "working defaults" and are trivially > reconfigurable through external automation tools, which is why mass > provisioning and configuration management systems work so well for RPM > based systems. OK, but the application isn't specifically mass provisioning and configuration. It needs to be applicable to somewhat-random, more-or-less autonomous existing installations which are already expected to pull (rather problematically-written) packages from a "local" repository. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/7NL6ZKIP6LHCHB6XHXH5BKLC5CLIVKCG/
